Skip to content

The analysis of nonverbal communication: the dangers of pseudoscience in security and justice contexts

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • Vincent Denault
  • Pierrich Plusquellec
  • Michel St-Yves
  • Norah E. Dunbar
  • Maria Hartwig
  • Siegfried L. Sporer
  • Jessica Rioux-Turcotte
  • Jonathan Jarry
  • Dave Walsh
  • Henry Otgaar
  • Andrei Viziteu
  • Victoria Talwar
  • David A. Keatley
  • Iris Blandón-Gitlin
  • Clint Townson
  • Nadine Deslauriers-Varin
  • Scott O. Lilienfeld
  • Miles L. Patterson
  • Igor Areh
  • Alfred Allan
  • Hilary Evans Cameron
  • Rémi Boivin
  • Leanne ten Brinke
  • Jaume Masip
  • Ray Bull
  • Mireille Cyr
  • Leif A. Strömwall
  • Faisal Al Menaiya
  • Richard A. Leo
  • Annelies Vredeveldt
  • Marty Laforest
  • Charles R. Honts
  • Antonio L. Manzanero
  • Pär-Anders Granhag
  • Karl Ask
  • Fiona Gabbert
  • Jean-Pierre Guay
  • Alexandre Coutant
  • Jeffrey Hancock
  • Valerie Manusov
  • Judee K. Burgoon
  • Steven M. Kleinman
  • Gordon Wright
  • Sara Landström
  • Ian Freckelton
  • Peter J. Van Koppen
For security and justice professionals (e.g., police officers, lawyers, judges), the thousands of peer-reviewed articles on nonverbal communication represent important sources of knowledge. However, despite the scope of the scientific work carried out on this subject, professionals can turn to programs, methods, and approaches that fail to reflect the state of science. The objective of this article is to examine (i) concepts of nonverbal communication conveyed by these programs, methods, and approaches, but also (ii) the consequences of their use (e.g., on the life or liberty of individuals). To achieve this objective, we describe the scope of scientific research on nonverbal communication. A program (SPOT; Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques), a method (the BAI; Behavior Analysis Interview) and an approach (synergology) that each run counter to the state of science are examined. Finally, we outline five hypotheses to explain why some organizations in the fields of security and justice are turning to pseudoscience and pseudoscientific techniques. We conclude the article by inviting these organizations to work with the international community of scholars who have scientific expertise in nonverbal communication and lie (and truth) detection to implement evidence-based practices.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages12
JournalAnuario de Psicología Jurídica
Early online date30 Apr 2019
Publication statusEarly online - 30 Apr 2019


Related information

Relations Get citation (various referencing formats)

ID: 13929031